The panel raised some concerns about the quality of data from the evaluation and noted that this limited the strength of their conclusions. In particular, the panel noted the low number of people in the evaluation who used Space from Depression.
The panel noted that outcomes data varied between the 3 services evaluated, showing that how the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service sets up and uses Space from Depression affects how well it works. The panel also noted that when compared with guided self-help, Space from Depression showed similar levels of recovery and reliable deterioration, and lower levels of reliable improvement, likely as a result of the Space from Depression group having lower baseline depression scores.
The panel noted that only 27% of people having Space from Depression, and 35% of people having non-digital standard care, submitted responses to the user feedback questionnaire. Given this low response rate, the outcomes of the survey were somewhat uncertain. But, in general, user feedback was slightly more positive about standard care than Space from Depression.
The panel noted that the number of appointments used for Space from Depression was similar to that seen for standard care, but that the overall therapist time taken was lower. The standard deviation of the therapist time values was large, showing that the range of total therapist time was very wide. Also, the standard care comparator group included a wide range of treatments and this made comparisons between the 2 groups difficult.